2018 (8) TMI 1494 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – 100 % EOU – Exit from the 100% EOU scheme – duty liability to be paid by the appellants on in-process goods lying in stock – Held that:- The ratio laid down by the Tribunal in Tirumala Seung Han Textiles Ltd. [2008 (9) TMI 252 – CESTAT BANGALORE] will apply on all fours to the appeal on hand, where it was held that when appellant is opting out of scheme, demand in respect of in-process goods not justified – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – E/713/2010 & E/CO/71/2010 – FINAL ORDER No. 41754/2018 – Dated:- 5-6-2018 – Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Appellant Ms. Cynduja Crishnan, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar The respondents were a 100 % EOU manufacturing neem based pesticides and organic fertilizers out of raw materials procured indigenously. They applied for exit from 100% EOU scheme for which the Developmen
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nfirmed by the original authority. The Revenue has come in appeal against the setting aside of the demand in respect of the in-process materials. Respondents have also filed cross-objection against upholding of the remaining demand amounting to ₹ 88,97,261/-. 2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, the Ld. AR Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC, reiterated the grounds of appeal. He drew our attention to Chapter 22 of the Central Excise & Customs Manual as per which, apart from the finished goods, raw materials and semi-finished goods, which were lying at the time of debonding had to be cleared on payment of duty. The Ld. AR further submits that the goods in-process are nothing but semi-finished goods. 3. For the respondents, Ld. Advocate, Ms. Cynduja Crishnan, submits that appellant is not pressing the prayers made in the cross-objection with respect to duty demand upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, in respect of the demand made in respect of in-process goods, she po
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
indigenous capital goods, raw materials, components, consumables, spares and finished goods in stock are mentioned. There is no mention about the in-process goods. In the absence of the mention of the in-process goods in the policy, there is no authority for demanding duty on the in-process goods. Hence, we set aside the demand of duty on the in-process goods. As informed by the Ld. Advocate, the appeal filed by the department against this decision has been dismissed by the Hon ble High Court of AP. 6. We do not find any new grounds or reasons to deviate from the ratio already laid down in Tirumala Seung Han Textiles Ltd. (supra). 7. In the event, there is no infirmity in the order of the lower appellate authority, for which reason the department appeal is dismissed. 8. The cross-objections filed by the respondent are dismissed as not pressed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax Management India – taxmanagementindia –
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =